Giles,
Thanks for your time and feedback.
on 1) - I believe you are correct. Is this confusing enough that we should
consider just leaving the inclusive/exclusive versions and skip the
abbreviated one alltogether?
on 2) - I like this idea. We will consider something along these lines for
our ongoing research with the XForms Processing Model.
Thanks!
Micah Dubinko
Co-editor, W3C XForms Working Group
-----Original Message-----
From: Giles Cope [mailto:gec@hyperoffice.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:37 AM
To: www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Review of XForms working draft
1. 'max' for Number should be short for maxInclusive not maxExclusive
(and 'min' respectivly).
2. In 9.4:
We do need a syntax to work on multiple models but,
<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b/orderForm/shipTo/firstName">
but we loose the idea of the current context using this syntax,
and have to specify everything from the root.
We need something like:
<xfm:textbox ref="instance::b./shipTo/firstName">
but obviously with better syntax. Maybe we could select the current
context in the binding element:
<xfm:bind>
<xfm:select="orderForm/shipTo/">
<xfm:bind id="myfirstname" ref="firstName""/>
<xfm:bind id="myaddresszip" ref="address/zip"/>
</xfm:select>
</xfm:bind>
my two cents,
gilescope@yahoo.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
"My sole reply," said he, "to that demand
Is action; when a fit request is made
Silence and deeds should follow out of hand."
-- Virgil [Canto XXIV, 76]